Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
The MPID Act was held to have overriding effect in a dispute over seized funds linked to investor claims, and the Special Court was found competent to decide release of the money despite seizure under the Income-tax Act and objections based on the PMLA. The Court relied on the direct nexus between the funds and investors' claims, and on the purpose of the MPID Act as protective depositor legislation that cannot be displaced by enactments operating in a different field. It also upheld release of the money to an escrow mechanism for investor restitution, noting that the settlement contemplated that course and that the release was justified on the facts. The appeal was dismissed.
The MPID Act was held to have overriding effect in a dispute over seized funds linked to investor claims, and the Special Court was found competent to decide release of the money despite seizure under the Income-tax Act and objections based on the PMLA. The Court relied on the direct nexus between the funds and investors' claims, and on the purpose of the MPID Act as protective depositor legislation that cannot be displaced by enactments operating in a different field. It also upheld release of the money to an escrow mechanism for investor restitution, noting that the settlement contemplated that course and that the release was justified on the facts. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.